There are times when a car accident renders an injured person unable to recall the events that caused his accident as well as other information prior to the crash. Sometimes, victims of car accidents feign amnesia to get lower requirements to prove their burdens of proof. However, there are also times when an injured person genuinely becomes amnesic after a car accident. Therefore, the same injured person must provide evidences that are formally affirmed by experts who know the true condition of an injured individual. This case, as discussed by one of our experts, involves a plaintiff who suffered from amnesia and is claiming to be compensated for damages against the City of New York’s alleged negligence.
Kenneth Gayle, Plaintiff, suffered injuries when upon driving over a large puddle, made his vehicle skid and crashed against the back of a parked trailer. The plaintiff claimed that what caused his accident is New York City’s negligence to maintain proper drainage in the area. The Plaintiff survived but was suffering amnesia during the time of the trial and had no recollection as to what happened during the time, the road condition, if it was raining and other claims that may have been used for inference. Therefore, his counsel requested that he be subject to lesser proof of burden since his recollection of the incidents leading to the accident must be greatly impaired. Initially, Gayle and his counsel’s request to use the Noseworthy doctrine was granted and consequently, he was also absolved of negligence.
The Noseworthy Doctrine, according to our source, is granted to a Plaintiff who suffers from amnesia and who is unable to recount how the accident happened, what caused it and other pertinent details about the incident. This inability to look after oneself by providing details pertaining to the accident makes it more difficult for the Plaintiff to convince the court that there is a case. However, the Plaintiff is not excused from providing circumstantial evidences to support his claims. Nobody saw how the puddle caused the Plaintiff to figure in an accident, which all the more makes him entitled to provide lesser proof based on the Noseworthy Doctrine.
The City of New York, Defendant, did not argue when it was established that it truly were negligent in failing to fix the problem area in a long time. However, they counter claimed that the Plaintiff failed to establish and present formal evidences and proofs that the bad road condition, in fact, contributed or caused Gayle to crash his car on the back of a trailer. Moreover, as previously mentioned, although Plaintiffs suffering from amnesia are somehow protected under the Noseworthy Doctrine, they still need to prove that the negligence of the City is the main reason why his car crashed and he suffered injuries. The Appellants/Defendants presented cases wherein plaintiffs who did not provide enough evidence and formal proof where actually exempted from the Noseworthy Doctrine. Since the Plaintiff failed to prove his non-negligence and failed to provide proofs to his defense, then it was contended by the Appellant that the Noseworthy Doctrine was not applicable in his case.
Our expert explains that based on the cited cases provided by the Defendants, in the absence of proof or evidence, there is simply no case to contend with and that the Plaintiff is not entitled to a verdict. The Plaintiff did not provide affidavits of facts to support his claim that his car crashed because New York City was negligent. Without ample information, there will be no inferences to reach a verdict. Moreover, verdicts should not be based on hearsay or assumptions and speculations; they must be based on facts. Also in one of the cases cited, it was exhibited that the Plaintiff must have disclosed the true condition of his car prior to the accident like the condition of the brakes, the tires as well as other important details about the vehicle. If this was done on purpose, criminal charges could result.
These evidences may have been used to infer that the Plaintiff was not negligent and that he truly was entitled to the Noseworthy Doctrine. Also, although the Plaintiff provided experts to testify about the road condition during the time of the accident and to establish the City’s negligence, some of the experts failed to provide reasonable explanation for the accident and were deemed not persuasive and sensible enough. Moreover, they have not been conveyed in a formal manner, which the Courts would have required. The Plaintiff’s counsel also failed to rule out other possible reasons for the car accident, since the puddle may not have been the only reason why the Plaintiff met an accident. No additional proof were provided and since they were not able to establish their claims with evidences, therefore, he was not entitled to a verdict against the Defendants/Appellant.
n cases such as these, it is important to exclude all likely reasons why a Plaintiff met an accident, aside from proving the negligence of the other party. If you were confronted with the same scenario, we, at Stephen Bilkis and Associates will help you prepare a good defense of your case. Our expert New York Car Crash Lawyers will make certain that all facets of your case will be explored and that no holes will be left open. Protect your rights! Call one of our offices now.